SporeBase Forum
February 21, 2018, 10:31:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Remember, we don't support anything pirated or illegally downloaded.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Search Shop Articles Links Gallery Login Register Wiki  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: February 19, 2018, 02:19:02 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
(click to show/hide)

 2 
 on: February 18, 2018, 09:56:19 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USBXY2pHSf0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USBXY2pHSf0</a>
i have outdone myself, i just can't get better than this

 3 
 on: February 18, 2018, 04:35:13 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
the ribs would have been a much bigger weight problem than organs because organs aren't really that heavy anyway, but

yeah why are we doing drama about physics over a piece of fantasy art

this is a belated edit

buttered cat paradox, checkmate

 4 
 on: February 18, 2018, 03:39:22 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by MangoJuice
No amount of muscle tension in the world can change the laws of physics. A body whose center of gravity is misaligned with what plants them on the ground will topple over no matter how you look at it. Also, I'm not the godlike be-all-end-all of artistic criticism. I'm not the only voice that matters here. Just because I don't see a post doesn't mean you have to completely halt development of a character.

The number of organs doesn't matter, it's all about mass. One bigass organ can weigh just as much as a bunch of smaller organs. And of course fantasy doesn't have to be """100% scientifically accurate""", because then it wouldn't be fantasy now would it? But it's very easy for something to bend suspension of disbelief to its breaking point and present a figure that makes so little logical sense that it's immersion breaking. This depends on the tone of the work, however. If it's a wacky crazy fuckit world, then you could get away with just about anything, but something intended to be taken more seriously must also be more believable.

If your definitions of "humanoid robot" are so strict that anything less than a 1/1 recreation of a homo sapien is disqualified, then no, we haven't reached that point yet, because these things need to carry massive battery packs with them for the time being. But this doesn't really enter into the whole center of mass argument because their center of mass is still the same as ours.

EDIT: Also, can you PLEASE stop editing your posts so heavily after posting them? Maybe spend more time writing them in the first place to add everything you want? By the time I'm finished with my replies half of it might not make sense.

 5 
 on: February 18, 2018, 03:05:30 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
No, I just found new information that adds more to the discussion is all, because physics of animals being able to stand are complicated by the presence of muscle tension and coordination. Also when I posted the updated sketches you kinda gave no feedback at all so I was sort of in limbo as to whether or not the changes were good. Huh I know you enjoy picking things apart but if you also point out what's good, it tends to be more helpful. When you provide good and bad, it's "keep this, alter that" feedback, but if you only provide bad, then how do I know what to keep?

I still have done a lot of changes which remove all internal organs from the tail so it's not as big of a weight anyway. Most of that has to do with lore changes though, because they are no longer descendants of insect-like ancestors, so transcribing the "head/thorax/abdomen" body plan to a vertebrate skeleton no longer makes sense in canon, not because everything has to be 100% scientifically accurate in fantasy. The original design would still not be anywhere near as bad as it is in your head though. I know I wasn't clear about this originally, but the only organ that was present in the tail was the large intestine.

Also that robot isn't what was meant, the humanoid robot means something specifically with a humanoid anatomy having straight legs, human proportions etc. That robot isn't built exactly the same as a human, which is why it can stand. Mostly it benefits from being in a permanent squat posture when resting, which helps it balance but would be hell on an animal's joints.

 6 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:55:52 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by MangoJuice
What I learned is, being digitigrade vs plantigrade affects center of gravity a lot, where being digitigrade causes it to shift forward. To get a feel for this yourself, stand on your toes. Notice how much more you suddenly want to fall on your face.

An upright biped which would always be walking on digitigrade legs would actually be more stable with additional back weight than a human has, because without it they'd want to fall forward.

An upright biped which would always be walking on digitigrade legs would actually be more stable with additional back weight than a human has, because without it they'd want to fall forward.
When I tried that, my body naturally fell backwards. This, I think comes down to individual body types and standing posture.

Additionally, muscle tension is great at allowing things to stand that would fall over if they were inanimate objects. Humans are actually hilariously unstable; this is why humanoid figures almost always need stands, huge feet, or need to be posed in awkward ways to not topple over, and no one has as of yet succeeded in building a humanoid robot that can hold itself up without falling forward. Humans are only able to walk and stand because of muscle tension and high levels of coordination.

 Huh

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I</a>

Furthermore, in life, there's organs in the core of the body which make the core much heavier than the limbs and tail. There's just not enough weight in arms to throw the center of gravity so majorly off balance that it can't stand because too heavy. If the arms were larger than the body then there'd be an issue.

It might not be ideal, but it's definitely possible, because living animals have muscles and are generally good at standing up against gravity.


That's a pretty bad example because the tails of spider monkeys do not contain internal organs. If they did, the monkey would be further weighed down by its tail and their body would have to lean forward to compensate.

I really have no idea why you're trying to defend the model in the OP when you've already come out with a sketch that makes a lot more sense and looks visually appealing. Is it because I'm the one who pointed it out??

 7 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:46:02 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
why is this tishpost getting attention

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPsDkVJqUoE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPsDkVJqUoE</a>

 8 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:43:50 PM 
Started by Kaos - Last post by Amber
Kaos if you log on again and see this I need to speak with you in private.
Kaos hasn't logged into the forums in over a year, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Try his steam instead.
Yeah, I know. Thanks.

 9 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:26:14 PM 
Started by Kaos - Last post by MangoJuice
Kaos if you log on again and see this I need to speak with you in private.
Kaos hasn't logged into the forums in over a year, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Try his steam instead.

 10 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:11:20 PM 
Started by Amber - Last post by Amber
Just posting this here because it's pretty relevant even though this is an old thread/old art:

I actually later found out that Mango's point is wrong and there was nothing wrong with my original design, apart from maybe proportion issues which were a mistake of the actual execution of the model, not in the concept itself.

What I learned is, being digitigrade vs plantigrade affects center of gravity a lot, where being digitigrade causes it to shift forward. To get a feel for this yourself, stand on your toes. Notice how much more you suddenly want to fall on your face.

An upright biped which would always be walking on digitigrade legs would actually be more stable with additional back weight than a human has, because without it they'd want to fall forward.

Additionally, muscle tension is great at allowing things to stand that would fall over if they were inanimate objects. Humans are actually hilariously unstable; this is why humanoid figures almost always need stands, huge feet, or need to be posed in awkward ways to not topple over, and no one has as of yet succeeded in building a humanoid robot that can hold itself up without falling forward. Humans are only able to walk and stand because of muscle tension and high levels of coordination.

Furthermore, in life, there's organs in the core of the body which make the core much heavier than the limbs and tail. There's just not enough weight in arms to throw the center of gravity so majorly off balance that it can't stand because too heavy. If the arms were larger than the body then there'd be an issue.

It might not be ideal, but it's definitely possible, because living animals have muscles and are generally good at standing up against gravity.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

+-Today's Birthdays
Yanky221 (39), stitchbrick8 (36), Ernestino44 (45), valyreib (40), n3ilwryt (37), francislamb11 (40), AudiRS3maniac (32), teeth14david (40), Nato (22)
Powered by EzPortal
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!